Talk:Optical lens design

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Glass High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlassWikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/GlassTemplate:WikiProject Glassglass articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Matrix transforms for lenses

I remember seeing some MIT OCW notes about modeling an optical system as a series of linear transformations, with a matrix representing each lens. Is there a name for this approach? It should at least be referenced here if not described here. —Ben FrantzDale 02:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, it's this course and in particular this lecture, which describes this as "Matrix Formulation of Geometrical Optics". —Ben FrantzDale 04:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, here it is: Ray transfer matrix analysis. —Ben FrantzDale 02:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reflection like writing and lacking citations

The writing shows interested tone and is lacking the expected citations that the claims are to be attributed to. These attributes and the style of writing makes me suspect that original research was done by editors who edited this page, which means that ideas that are not directly conveyed in cited references and it was fabricated through creative writing. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to go on a vendetta against original research, fine, but please be more careful in your editing. You blanket-reverted changes that are not really controversial (small changes in wording, the access date on a reference, etc.)

I deleted the first paragraph of the optimization section. It no longer served any purpose, after the following material had been deleted. I restored some of the small changes that you blanket-reverted, and some of the see also links that were appropriate. Removing the whole section was not a good solution to the claimed problem of "too many" see alsos. See what you think.--Srleffler (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Vendatta" or whatever you call it, original research is prohibited here. Our tasks is to convey and summarize what is said in attributable references. In other words, it absolutely would not be contaminated with "i.e." and other interpretive gibberish not specifically addressed in references. You can not combine reference, A, B and C to say something that references do not directly support. If you combine the ideas of multiple references and write your own interpretation, it is called WP:SYNTHESIS here. Anyone can edit wikipedia and contamination with original research threatens the credibility of contents. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am very familiar with the policies. Zeal to enforce them does not excuse sloppy editing, however. Also, note that policy does not, in fact, require that articles say only what is said in cited references. It has to be possible to find a source for everything, but not all statements require actual attribution to a source. Note the wording at Wikipedia:Verifiability: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source" (emphasis mine). Statements that are not likely to be challenged do not require a citation until they are, in fact, challenged.--Srleffler (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not. "Interpretive gibberish" is allowed. WP:SYNTH is introduction of a new thesis not found in any source. Editors are free to explain material in ways other than how it is presented in the sources, including by use of "i.e.", as long as they do not introduce any new ideas not found in any of the sources.--Srleffler (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing?

Regarding this edit by User:Cantaloupe2: Do you really believe that the statement is likely not to be true? If not, you are violating Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Editors should not challenge statements just because they can.

Furthermore, by deleting all mention of optical requirements from the list of performance requirements you have made the entire section unbalanced and inaccurate. Optical designs do not only have physical and environmental requirements; they also have optical requirements. If you are not being intentionally disruptive here, you are at least being unacceptably sloppy to the point of inadvertent disruption.--Srleffler (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From your comments above, you seem to be reacting to the use of "i.e." in this paragraph. The "i.e." here is saying that "Optical performance" is a synonym for "image quality". This is an obvious statement; not SYNTH.--Srleffler (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not onto me to provide clear and convincing burden that statement is incorrect. Lacking any verification from WP:RS that these claims are valid and relevant. You could read a monster cable sales flyer and read claims of relevance that is not supported to the same degree by reliable sources. If you think you know your stuff, then perhaps you know what to search for to validate these questionable claims so you can add them to support whats said. What sources directly support the claim optical performance is synonymous with image quality? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The policy does not require obvious statements to be supported by reliable sources. Repeatedly deleting such material as SYNTH is disruptive behaviour. While no reference is needed I provided one anyway: the reference I added yesterday directly supports the equivalence of "optical performance" and "image quality", along with much of the rest of the paragraph.--Srleffler (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A point that got lost, perhaps due to misunderstanding

This edit loses a key concept, and the resulting statement is no longer accurate. The issue is that lens optimization is not a completely algorithmic process. A raytracing program can accurately model the performance of any given lens design. One might think that this would imply that a program could optimize a lens design simply by modelling the performance of variants of it, and iterating until the result is as good as possible. It turns out that this does not work as well as one might hope because the design space has multiple variables and is nonlinear. In simple cases, one can specify the requirements and have the computer chug away until it has a design that meets them. In most cases of practical interest, however, the engineer has to know what kind of lens design is required from the beginning, and has to keep the computer from deviating too far from the correct design.

I'll try to come up with better wording. This is not about "passion", but about accurately expressing the process, and the limits of automated optimization. A lot of the text that was deleted in past edits was also trying to get this idea across. The wording may have been unnecessarily "passionate", but the concept involved is not.--Srleffler (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

desired is a value statement and rapidly is a comparative statement based on unknown statement. "In most cases of practical interest, however, the engineer has to know what kind of lens design is required from the beginning, and has to keep the computer from deviating too far from the correct design. " this comes from where? Wikipedia is not your first hand knowledge Wordpress. Again, support such a claim with reference. I'm not going to just take your word for it that what you claim to be accurate is accurate. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that computer optimization is more rapid than hand calculation is obvious and does not require a reference. I don't see the word "desired" in the text you deleted today; it was used in the previous version. I disagree with your statement above. "Desired" is a word. Whether it is part of a "value statement" depends on the sentence in which it is used. You seem to like taking individual words, independent of context, and claiming that they somehow inherently violate policy. See Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not. You have to evaluate what the statement actually says; you can't just flag individual words. Describing the performance requirements that a design is supposed to meet as "desired" may not suit your taste, but it does not violate any policy.

I'll look for a source for the statement about the role of the engineer in the process. It would have been more appropriate, however, for you to have added a "cite needed" tag rather than deleting it.--Srleffler (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the disputed text with text supported by another part of the Fisher book.--Srleffler (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Optical lens design/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Ridiculous drivel. Performing ray tracing at the speed of light that is nonsense.

Last edited at 20:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 01:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)